If you wanted to come up with a plan to undermine the economy of the most prosperous and successful nation on earth, how would you go about it?
The first thing you’d have to do would be to debase the underlying value system that provides the foundation for prosperity. That is, the value system to which the founders of this nation, and many generations of immigrants who came here seeking opportunity, subscribed. The core of that value system is the belief that you do not deserve anything you have not earned.
The first step would be to condition the populace to believe that prosperity is bad, that anybody who makes more than a modest income must be evil (or at least dishonest), and that nobody really deserves to be rich, no matter how much they contribute to the economy or how many opportunities they create for others. The rich, by definition, are always a minority, since the term itself implies someone who has substantially greater wealth than the average person. All that’s usually needed to turn the many against the few is a sense of grievance.
Fostering a sense of grievance can be accomplished by promoting the notion that everybody, by virtue of their very existence, is entitled to basic sustenance, such as healthcare, food, shelter, etc. This attitude can be cultivated by establishing a system of bureaucracies (paid for almost entirely by the rich) that provide free handouts to everybody else, while nurturing a sense of perpetual resentment among the people receiving the handouts toward those who provide the wherewithal to satisfy their ever-increasing expectations.
The many are not generally aware that nearly 90% of the income taxes that sustain our government, and all the services “it” provides, are collected from the top 20% of income earners. And, if the many were aware of that, do you think they’d feel like saying “Thank you”? Not likely. Because they’ve been conditioned to believe that the rich don’t deserve their wealth, and that they, the beneficiaries of all those taxes paid by the rich, deserve that money more than the people who earned it. What did the beneficiaries do to deserve it? Nothing. But they exist, and therefore they’re entitled to things they cannot afford, so the money should be taken from those who can afford it and redistributed to them.
Having undermined the cultural values that provide the basis for a prosperous economy, by fostering a culture of dependency on ever-expanding government services, you now have popular support for the next step, which is to penalize production. You do that by regulating industries to the point where the cost of doing business is too great to justify the returns, forcing businesses to either downsize, go bankrupt, or relocate offshore. That increases unemployment, creating an even greater dependency on government services. At the same time, it reduces production so there’s less wealth to tax, and less money coming into the system to support the ever-increasing demands.
At that point, you’ve got a self-perpetuating cycle, with ever-increasing demands on the system and ever-diminishing resources from which to draw to provide for them. To add fuel to the firestorm, you can use the increasing demands as an excuse to raise taxes on the remaining top producers even more, driving more employers out of business or offshore, creating an even larger non-productive class, and further accelerating the drain on the system…
But why stop there? At this point, the economy is so unstable, it can be toppled with ease. To finish it off in style, all that’s required is to spend like a drunken sailor. Get the nation so far in debt to hostile foreign powers that they won’t accept our IOUs any more. Print up fiat money and dilute our currency to the point that the whole world loses confidence in it and the G20 proposes a new international monetary standard. Then distract the citizens by holding contests in Congress to see who can spend money the fastest, and call it a “stimulus plan.”
At that point, the death spiral reaches critical mass. That’s where we are today. How did we get to this point? Well, it could just be a combination of entropy, ignorance, and well-intentioned idiots. Or it could be that there are those who actively seek to undermine our economy to bring our nation to its knees. For what purpose? That depends on who’s pulling the strings. I concede that this begins to sound a little paranoid from someone who usually dismisses conspiracy theories. On the other hand, it’s hard to imagine that anyone, especially the leaders of our nation, are stupid enough not to realize they’re doing the exact things required to accelerate the collapse of our already destabilized economy. And, if they’re not stupid, then they must have a reason for what they’re doing.
[...] presents How to Undermine the Economy posted at Government is not your Daddy., saying, “If you wanted to come up with a plan to [...]
I took excerpts from the opening statement.
“The first step would be to condition the populace to believe that prosperity is bad, that anybody who makes more than a modest income must be evil (or at least dishonest), and that nobody really deserves to be rich”
“they, the beneficiaries of all those taxes paid by the rich, deserve that money more than the people who earned it.”
“How did we get to this point? Well, it could just be a combination of entropy, ignorance, and well-intentioned idiots.”
I love the last phrase, although I prefer ‘useful idiots’. These are the puppets controlled by the George Soros’s of the world.
“On the other hand, it’s hard to imagine that anyone, especially the leaders of our nation, are stupid enough not to realize they’re doing the exact things required to accelerate the collapse of our already destabilized economy. And, if they’re not stupid, then they must have a reason for what they’re doing.”
The reason is power. Our current rulers do not mind if they collapse the economy. They figure that they can manage it, at least for their lifetimes. They need to create large dependent classes. That is how they maintain control. Look how they control the elderly through SS and Medicare.
It is not that they do not want wealthy people. They want wealthy people allied to them. They do not want wealthy people independent of them who could be a political threat. A past example of independent wealth threatening an oppressive central government would be the political leadership of the American Revolution.
The Hugo Chavez’s and Fidel Castro’s of the world demonized the rich, but they are really not against the rich, as long as the rich are in their party and paying off. They have shown our leaders that just because you ruin your nation’s economy, it does not mean you can’t have a rewarding life.
“On the other hand, it’s hard to imagine that anyone, especially the leaders of our nation, are stupid enough not to realize they’re doing the exact things required to accelerate the collapse of our already destabilized economy. And, if they’re not stupid, then they must have a reason for what they’re doing.”
Our “leaders” are not stupid. They are doing exactly what was promised during the campaign-”Fundementally changing America”. Chairman Maobama spoke of it often during the campaign, he and his Chicago thugs are turning a once great REPUBLIC into coldwar Russia right before our eyes.
Most of his “Czars” are avowed Communists, he surroinds himself with people of the same mindset he has. All the Presidents Czars are a government within the government, and at some point in the not to distant future, Chairman Maobama will cease to work through the Congress, and dictate through his (chosen) politburo.
He has already started employing ACORN as his “National Defense Force”, SEIU is his “Labor” enforcement agency, and AMERICORP is his “Serve-or-Else” arm.
Hard to believe that Cash for Clunkers, the Governments first attempt at selling cars, lastd only four days; it was intended to last four MONTHS! Does anyone really think the officals that thought 1 BILLION dollars would last four months have a freakin’ clue as to how much Obama’s single payer healthcare plan is going to cost? And yet “some” who comment on here think that the cost will go down, not a single governemt program EVER costs less than was forecast. Medicare is a prime example, the firast year cost for medicare was SEVEN times what the projections were. Chairman Maobama’s sinlge payer plan will cost at least seven times what is projected. Period end of story!
UPDATE: This weekend, Dear leaders talking heads made the rounds of the talk shows and lo-and-behold, a Middle class tax hike is on the table! Yet another BROKEN PROMISE coming down the pipe.
Let’s say NYD is exactly correct. No one “deserves” anything they didn’t earn. Human nature being what it is, though, an ever increasing gap between rich and poor still creates its own set of problems. I’d guess this is because most of the poor don’t enjoy being poor, even when they fully “deserve” it. Because of that human nature, perhaps right and wrong don’t really matter. Perhaps the “death spiral” that NYD talks about is inevitable. Perhaps you can always do the correct thing and still end up screwed. Maybe this is part of the reason why there has never been a government in the history of civilization that didn’t, sooner or later, come to an end. (Present company excepted, of course.)
Or perhaps the “poor” could improve their livelihood by taking responsibiltiy and improving themselves; perhaps by making better life choices, or advancing their education, nay, let them continue to blame the productive…its SO much easier.
Wigglesworth,
“Let’s say NYD is exactly correct.”
Yea,,,,let’s say that.
“an ever increasing gap between rich and poor still creates its own set of problems.”
Why do you think this is “ever increasing”???
What do you propose to do about this “ever increasing gap”??? Do you propose bringing the rich down to the poor folks level? That would indeed close the gap.
In the current economic climate, why is it that states like Caleefornia which worry about the “ever increasing gap”, are doing far worse than states like say Texas who do not punish their wealthy for being successful?
Oh, I left out this little gem about Caleefornia. They even print their own money when they run out. Except they put the letters IOU on their money instead of dead Presidents.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/02/AR2009080201253.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
“National parallels again seem apparent. Federal budget deficits — reflecting the urge to spend and not tax — predate the recession and, as baby boomers retire, will survive any recovery. Amazingly, the Obama administration would worsen the long-term outlook by expanding federal health insurance coverage. There’s much mushy thinking about how we’ll muddle through.
“California has pioneered this sort of delusion.”
You both missed the point.
Wigglesworth,
“You both missed the point.”
AND the point was?????????
The point is, “Boo hoo. Provide me with health care because I’m a good person. Don’t force me to get off my ass and find a real job, just let me sit here and weave baskets and be comfortable…and give me what I need. Boo hoo.”
Apemantus,
I yield the floor to one whose eloquence in expression surpasses my humble efforts.
Should. Should, should, should. Should!
As in: “We should all do the right thing. If we do, then the thing I want will come to pass.” Unfortunately, though, even if YOU do the right thing, you can’t force anyone around you do the right thing, so the thing you want may never come to pass.
You can stand there crying “but it shouldn’t be this way” all you want until the cows come home but that won’t magically make the outcome change.
If you pick a course of action because you think it is the right one but the resulting outcome isn’t what you expected and wanted, perhaps it is time to stop thinking your course of action was the right one.
Wigglesworth,
“If you pick a course of action because you think it is the right one but the resulting outcome isn’t what you expected and wanted, perhaps it is time to stop thinking your course of action was the right one.”
Based on your conclusion then, should Chairman Maobama quit pushing for his single payer health care plan since the VAST majority of Americans do not want it?
Damn, but this seems familiar. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but it sounds a lot like one or two, or several, of our elected officials policies.
I too am starting to be a bigger proponent of some of the more plausible Conspiracy Theories going around now. They just sound too good to just ignore.
How can anyone actually believe that George Soros has furnished millions to “the one” out of some sincere interest in helping the lad along. A man of his wealth fully realizes that everything has a price and is willing to step up and pay it. Once the money has changed hands he will expect–no, demand, a return. If it alters the constitutional framework of our federal government he couldn’t care less. I wonder how much of his stock portfolio he shorted in anticipation of Obama’s action. I’ll bet is was measured in billions and not millions.
George Soros is not only rich, he is old. He has plenty of money to last his lifetime. He has other motives for backing Obama Inc. and it’s subsidiaries Move On.org, ACORN, GE, etc.
Those on this board who are in favor of Government run health care have still not given credible examples of it’s success anywhere in the world. Now just because they can not hold up their end in this most important discussion, does not mean that those of us who oppose Socialized Medicine cannot find plenty of examples of it’s failures.
I offer this example of the financial failure of Socialized Medicine, which is what Obama-Care is. This is from an article in the Wall St. Journal dated today 8/7/09, entitled ” France Fights Universal Care’s High Cost” by David Gauthier-Villars.
The article gives an example of a woman giving birth in a fire truck because cost cutting had shut down a local maternity ward. This year France’s Assurance Maladie will run a $13.5 billion deficit. As America moves toward French style socialized health care, Sarkozy is trying to move France toward American used methods to keep their system solvent.
Sarkozy like previous French leaders is up against massive protests from the receivers of Medical welfare. This foreshadows what will happen in the US if future leaders attempt to roll back Obama-care once it is in place.
—————————————————-
Universal Health care is Socialism and it will bankrupt the United States. The Democrats cost estimates are worthless. One last thought on Socialism in general.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_said_socialism_works_until_you_run_out_of_other_people’s_money
“Margaret Thatcher, in a television interview for Thames TV This Week on February 5, 1976. Prime Minister Thatcher said, “…and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them.”"
“…who are in favor of Government run health care have still not given credible examples of it’s success anywhere in the world.”
That’s because there are NONE!
IF one is of the assumption that our health care system is broken (debateable, yet I happen to agree with that it is), the most effective way to fix it is to give people more options. The biggest excuse I hear is “when I lose my job, I lose my coverage.” The simplest fix is to remove health care from the work place. No one looses auto insurance, or homeowners/renters insurance when they lose their job, why should health care insurance be any different?
DJ,
There are similarities between health care and car insurance. I recently had to get my kid off of my car insurance and had to make some hard choices to get the costs to her and me under control. By choosing high deductibles and opting for limited tort on one of the policies I got the costs down where they needed to be.
Let’s compare this to health care. I am a fan of former Mass. Gov. Romney, but that does not keep me from saying he royally screwed everyone in his State with Romney-Care. Massachusetts mandates 43 coverages that some people might not need. In vitro fertilization is one that if you could opt out of would save you 5%. Lobbying by special interests is what drives the coverage mandates. Every provider of medical procedures lobbies for coverage.
President Obama has created a lobbyist friendly environment. With the government taking an ever greater % of the economy over, every business, labor union, and bird watcher’s club will have to pay lobbyists just to protect themselves.
I ran across this today and found it to be quite interesting;
“The U.S. government is prepared to provide up to $10 billion in loans to finance the development of massive hydrocarbon reserves off Brazil’s coast, a Brazilian official said Wednesday” (Retrieved from http://www.laprensasa.com/2.0/3/309/279719/America-in-English/U-S-ready-to-finance-oil-drilling-in-Brazil.html).
American tax dollars (which we don’t have) are going to fund a Brazilian OFFSHORE oil field, yet we can’t drill here, drill now? It seems that Chairman Maobama is only interested in saving the US environment,
“…the Obama administration…blocked offshore drilling plans put in place at the last minute by the Bush administration, including plans to open the national outer continental shelf for drilling” (Retrieved from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/11/drilling-ban-revisited/)
Or perhaps (and much more likely) it is more important to keep the US reliant on foreign oil (in order to finish off our economy) when we easily have enough domestic reserves to last us for over 200 years!
1) “…. and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels.”
2) “That’s enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 41 years straight.”
3) “4-20-6 Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels” (Retrieved from http://prismwebcastnews.com/2009/02/28/peak-oil-lie-us-has-utterly-giant-oil-reserves/).
Think of the jobs that would be created HERE if we tapped what we have available, not to mention the boost to the economy. However, Chairman Maobama is working to undermine the economy, not stabilize and grow it!
As has been pointed out before, most of your links here don’t really work “DJ”.
“Or perhaps (and much more likely) it is more important to keep the US reliant on foreign oil (in order to finish off our economy) when we easily have enough domestic reserves to last us for over 200 years!”
This is completely hyperbole that has ZERO in the way of facts to support it…see below…
“‘4-20-6 Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels’”
No, it isn’t. You have fallen prey to, yet again, another “conservative” e-mail chain that has little to no facts behind it.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/bakken.asp
An April 2008 USGS report estimated the amount of technically recoverable oil in the Bakken Formation at 3-4.3 billion barrels with a mean of 3.65 billion.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation
“Bartis also cautioned that the technology to extract oil from the fields was not yet commercially viable and said that even ‘under high growth assumptions, an oil shale production level of 1 million barrels per day is probably more than 20 years in the future, and 3 million barrels per day is probably more than 30 years into the future.’”
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/community-news/bakken-oil-drilling-55031701
http://www.green-planet-solar-energy.com/bakken-oil.html
“What any interested party should understand, however, is the huge difference between ‘technically recoverable oil’ and ‘practical oil recovery’. Practical oil recovery must accommodate current and anticipated technologies, drilling and completion costs, operating costs, oil price and local, state and federal regulations. The ‘practical oil recovery’ amount for the Bakken is probably more like 500 million barrels of oil.”
http://www.examiner.com/x-2950-Denver-Energy-Industry-Examiner~y2009m3d16-Reports-of-Bakken-Shale-oil-reserves-are-the-stuff-of-urban-legends
Oil sands are NOT oil shale BTW, and oil sand production is very expensive & dirty.
“Think of the jobs that would be created HERE if we tapped what we have available”
Ummmm, they are already tapping into the Bakken oil shale reserve, and the results have been less than impressive. The money & the technology just aren’t there, period.
The thing to remember about these wild “new oil discovery” claims is that big numbers are almost always cited to begin with, and then no one pays attention when the real estimates come in at a much, much lower number. The Right-wing LOVES to exploit people (like “DJ”) on this issue.
DJ,
I knew that Brazil had found 2 deep sea oil deposits. I did not think they needed the out side financing, but obviously they do. The Chinese financing may be a reason the US is involved. China is in a scrample to nail down future global oil supplies. The few adults in the Obama administration may have wanted to counter what the Chinese are doing. I can’t figure what other reasons there might be.
I always find it amusing how they say we are running out of oil and then Brazil or somebody else finds more.
We always have to remember that President Obama is beholding to his left wing base. If he allows conventional energy production in this country to expand, he would save the economy and his Presidency, but that would alienate the morons who put him in office. He has already angered them over the detainee photos.
Check that second link you posted. When I click, it goes to a story on Israel and the Palestinians.
DJ,
Actually it is your third link that goes to the wrong address.
Alan,
I just clicked it and got the same sight you mentioned. I put US oil reserves in GOOGLE’s search box and This:
#
Peak Oil Lie? US Has Utterly Giant Oil Reserves » Prism Webcast News
Feb 28, 2009 … U. S. Oil Discovery – Largest Reserve In The World! Stansberry Report Online – 4-20-6 Hidden 1000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky …
prismwebcastnews.com/…/peak-oil-lie-us-has-utterly-giant-oil-reserves/ – Cached – Similar
#
is the 6th result that shows up, clicking on the title still goes to the story.
I hope that helps :)
DJ,
I’ve tried to go to the site you mentioned and could not. Whenever I use any link that has Stansberry in it, the link fails. I am guessing that this is referring to the Bakken oil shale deposit.
If it is the Bakken oil field you are talking about, it is not so simple. Oil shale generally has a low energy density compared to crude oil. It can require expensive extraction and processing. That said, it probably makes more sense than most of “green”technology that the spendocrats are subsidizing.
Alan,
The article did not reference the Bakken or shale, although I do believe the Bakken is a valid source of domestic oil. There is a technology being used in at the Utah oil sands were the are able to extrat 99% of the oil out of the sand and return the sand-chemical and oil free that some in the energy field think may reduce the price of extracting the oil from shale.
The article I was referencing talks a bout oil under the Rockies;
“Stansberry Report Online — 4-20-6
Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels.”
I was again looking for the article, I can find many places it is cited, but the original article seems to have been removed.
Alan,
Try this, go to http://prismwebcastnews.com/,
Under the SUSTAINABILITY category, select PEAK OIL,
This
“Saturday, February 28th, 2009
Peak Oil Lie? US Has Utterly Giant Oil Reserves”
is the fifth item in the list and links to the story…I hope…
DJ,
I have reservations trusting http://prismwebcastnews.com/, as a source. I don’t like a lot of the other items on their lists.
Alan,
http://prismwebcastnews.com/ was not intended to be a source, they just happened to be the site that had the article. I have found it on other sites, although the original seems to have ben removed.
DJ,
Here is what I have found.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/42850
“Congratulations to those intrepid operators who are lifting oil out of the Middle Bakken. Despite this success, the Middle Bakken is clearly not the answer to our peak oil problems and dependency on foreign oil”
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3868
“The Bakken potential resource, while large by US onshore field standards, will have only a minor effect on US production or imports.”
Alan,
Here is a link to the oil sands extraction I mentioned earlier.
http://www.nevtahoilsands.com/
I am still looking for the link that mentions using a form of this technology to extract the oil from shale.
DJ,
I visited the site you mentioned. They talk about the Utah oil sands. They mention reserves in the millions and low billions of barrels. The operations that they list seem in the 100s of thousands of barrels per year.
I only gave it a fast read, but it did not sound as if they had found enough to insure oil independence. That said, we need every drop.
For the record.
Just another documented example of President Obama being “Inaccurate”.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/12/politics/main5236159.shtml
It must really stink when the teleprompter isn’t there.
Are you unemployed? Are you underemployed? Do you just need a little extra money? Do I have a deal for you? Thanks to our beloved President, you can make extra money and push back against those racist Republican mobs. You know, those organized astro turf knuckle draggers, who pretend to represent every day Americans.
http://losangeles.craigslist.org/lac/npo/1320138750.html
“Work to Pass Obama’s Healthcare Plan and Get Paid to Do it!$10-15 hr! (Mid Wilshire)”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/opinion/16obama.html?_r=2
President Obama’s op-ed piece on health care. It’s BIG INSURANCE’s fault. It’s always big oil, big drug, big bank, big wall street. It’s never big government.
President Obama says; ” We’ll cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid”
WHY doesn’t he do that now?? If he knows where this inefficiency is, he can just cut it now without overhauling the rest of the medical economy.
The rest of the President’s sentence ; ” and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies that do nothing to improve care and everything to improve their profits.”
What he means is that Big Insurance will now have to pay protection money to the Democratic Party if they want to make these big profits and pay big bonuses.
Am I wrong? Maybe. Look at the record. Democrats have bashed any company making a profit which does not pay them off. Barney Frank, Lacy Clay, and Maxine Waters had no problem with the $100 million bonus Franklin Raines received for destroying Fannie Mae. They protected him from OFHEO during the hearings.
Finally lets look at how President Barak Obama uses your money to punish and reward. This is from an article on Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/us/politics/16emanuel.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
“That is not to say Mr. Emanuel does not still play hardball. When Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican whip, criticized Mr. Obama for spending too much, cabinet secretaries sent a letter to his state’s governor, Jan Brewer, a Republican, asking what stimulus money she did not want.”
Anyone want to argue with me that this is not corruption? Anyone want to argue with me that these people should not be in charge?
Here is another example of how our rulers in Washington D.C. know how to spend our money better than we do.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-capitol-lights21-2009aug21,0,6344394.story
“A project headed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is underway to replace the current lights with bulbs expected to use 70% less energy. But some Republicans say the $1-million cost is too pricey.”
“House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) complained that it would take 50 years to generate enough energy savings to recoup the costs.”
The health care legislation is loaded with complex language and a multitude of pages. Since most of us won’t read it or understand the details, we rely on our political leaders and their critics to tell us what it really means. It comes down to credibility. Who do you believe?
As President Obama goes out to public forums to correct what he calls misinformation about health care reform it is useful to give examples of his administration’s contradictions.
http://cbs5.com/national/president.barack.obama.2.940492.html
“Obama Seeks To Halve Budget Deficit”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/21/official-obama-increase-year-deficit-trillion/?test=latestnews
“Obama Administration to Increase 10-Year Deficit Estimate to $9 Trillion”
Alan,
Don’t forget his promises to lower taxes on 95% of Americans, his promise of transparency, his promise to allow bills to viewed by the people for 5 days before signing them, his promise to eliminate pork…
This Single payer plan he wants is shredding his party. Chairman MaObama is between a rock and a hard place, if hangs his hat on Pelosi and the far left, he loses the independents, if he rolls with the independents, he loses his base. He would be better off leaving health care alone, he won’t though, and the resulting “compromise” bill is going to destroy whats left of the economy and decimate the dollar.
“Don’t forget his promises to lower taxes on 95% of Americans”
You mean the payroll tax cuts that were *already put into effect* earlier this year…lol…
“his promise to eliminate pork”
He *never* promised this at all. For the who-knows-what-time, under GOP leadership in Congress, earmarks grew both in number & in cost. Under Democratic leadership in Congress, earmarks were reduced both in number & in cost, period.
“This Single payer plan he wants is shredding his party.”
It’s NOT a single-payer health care plan!! Get that through your apparently overly-thick skull “DJ”!!
“He would be better off leaving health care alone”
You mean the GOP’s buddies in the health insurance & pharmaceutical companies would be better off if nothing was done that is…ugh…
Actually Comrade, his plan IS a single payer plan. THe verbiage in the house bill prohibits one from getting private insurance when they change jobs-perhaps you should read the bill Kiddo.
Chairman MaObama did proise to eliminate pork, “…even though it is stashed with the very kinds of pet projects that the campaigning Obama promised to resist”(¶1) Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/11/obama-earmark-reform-rema_n_173873.html
As I am sure you will point out, in the attached speech, Dear Leader praises SOME earmarks, and that does not change the FACT that he campaigned on ELIMINATING THEM. As I stated, it is another broken promise Kiddo, PERIOD.
DJ,
I was chastised by WW for calling him Obulls$1tter. Those of us in the loyal opposition always knew the man talked like a combination lawyer and used car salesman. His vague generalities give him plausible deniability. Finally some of his supporters are getting tired. His snow jobs are blizzards.
I think the President is being undone by the unemployment rate. Even though the economy has bottomed and may actually be in recovery, the jobless will soon lose all patience. Companies have become profitable by cutting people, not by rising sales. They are not in a hurry to rehire, especially with Democrats constantly bashing business and throwing card check around.
We are soon getting to the point of knowing whether Obama is Clinton or Carter. If the unemployment rate does not soon fall, Obama-care will be the least of his political problems. Odds are good that Iraq, Afghanistan, or N.Korea will fall apart. If that happens while people are still out of work we will all be arguing about which Republican will take over in 2012.
Alan,
Good analysis (for lack of a better word). In response to your query, Chairman MaObama talks like Clinton, but governs like Carter. Actually, he is left of Carter. I am not convinced that he can be beat in 2012, I would like to see it, but I am not convinced it will happen. I am certain that the House will change hands by then, and the Senate will come back from this filibuster proof debacle they have allowed. However, if the GOP doesn’t find a slew of Conservative/Libertarian candidates it won’t matter much, there is so little difference between the two parties. If you are familiar with Carroll Quigley, I think the political parties we have now are precisely what he advocated. If things do not change, the country will be in this pre-communism limbo for many years.
DJ,
I’ve never heard of Carrol Quigley. Since you brought him up, I’ve scanned briefly his articles at http://www.carrollquigley.net/articles.htm
He is too egg headed for my taste, or maybe the word is abstract. I could not find what he wrote about political parties.
As far as where I see the parties heading, the Democrats are trying to have permanent dependencies built before the political winds shift. This will help them down the road. As the ones in power they are getting fatter and more corrupt. My favorite bacon bringer backer is John Murtha. Eventually this and disunity will do them in.
Republicans have always been at their best when they come in to power, hungry. The examples are the Reaganites in 81 and Gingrich & co in 95. The Democrats are certainly corrupt and fat enough now for the scrapple tub. The question is will Republicans be hungry enough in 2010 and 2012.
Alan,
Carroll Quigley said that both political parties should very near the same ideological, that way the change of control would have little impact. HE also said “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers.” (I can’t remember where the quote came from, but it was from CQ).
I disagree with the statements. The current problem we have, started with those who wanted government to have a larger role and those who wanted the states to have a a larger role. They have evolved into two “I can give you more than they can” entitlement generating machines, ideologically, I can find little difference between them, in the implementation of their ideals, however, they do differ and that is what the current “DEM v. REP” cat fight is about. It is not about ideological differences, it is 100% about how fast we get to the Nanny state.
DJ,
As a Republican, I reject the notion that there is no difference between the parties. The fact that they can’t cooperate is a good sign. I admit that the longer Republicans were in power the more they tried to get along by giving away the store. Politrically it did not work. They were amateur socialists. Now the country is getting a taste of professional socialists and it doesn’t like them.
The fact that they were able to stand united against Obamacare is a good sign that Republicans are at least moving in a more Libertarian path. It is generally easier for the have nots to stay united than it is for the party in power. Democrats won’t be able to spread all the graft equitably among all of their freeloaders.
Right now Republicans are wandering the wilderness. Hopefully they hate it enough not to do it for 40 years. If they brand themselves as anti Obama, anti Pelosi and Reid, they have a good chance. If they go all bi-partisan their goose is cooked. The only thing they should support Obama on is the Afghanistan war. Obama is losing his anti war hippies on that one.
Alan,
I agree he seems to be losing the hippies. I disagree on Afghanistan. Obama, just like Bush, has no plan to GTFO. I want a President that will “release the hounds”, then when the war is over, bring them home. This pussy-footing around Bush and Chairman MaObama are doing is getting ridiculous.
Regarding MaObamacare, what little the GOP has shown is not encouraging. I am a Conservative, I want representation that will get the government OUT of health care, and move completely away from employer paid health care, let each person (or family) buy health insurance the same way that auto insurance can be bought, or homeowners insurance. What I have seen from the GOP, is crap like HSA’a and tax credits. Crap that hasn’t worked and CANNOT work. anytime the government is giving money away, the costs sky rocket.
DJ,
Perhaps I am less of an ideological purist than you. You said “What I have seen from the GOP, is crap like HSA’a and tax credits. Crap that hasn’t worked and CANNOT work. anytime the government is giving money away, the costs sky rocket.”
Where have health savings accounts and tax credits been tried and where have they failed? I agree that once you give away free health care there is a rush to get on it and bankrupt it. Those who then pay for it with their taxes say to themselves, ” why don’t I quit killing myself and get on the gravy train too.”
The most egregious example is disability. I know plenty of people who belong on it and just as many who should be taken off of it. Once you get on it, you’ve got a financial back stop that the rest of us don’t have.
The other example is the free health care for kids in Hawaii. So many people who could have covered their own kids signed up that they destroyed it.
Alan,
My apologies for a poorly worded response. I can find no evidence that HSA’s and tax credits work or do not work. My “Crap that hasn’t worked and CANNOT work”. statement was intended to reference farm subsides, medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. Every program the government (fed and state) start, sound like a good idea, they “feel good”, but the cost and return for that cost are inversely proportional. The more they cost, the lower the return.
The GOP and DNC ideologies as applied to medicare are the same. LBJ fought for and started the program, Bush added part D.
If the ideologies were different, the GOP would have worked to privatize all of medicare and medicaid. Government should have no involvement in health care or insurance.
Regarding Social Security, neither side differs on the approach to SS. There have been attempts to privatize, but they fall on deaf ears. An ideologically different party would have ran candidates on the advantages of privatizing SS. Instead, we are told it is “the third rail” NO ONE messes with social security.
As far as Keiki care, I don’t blame those that let policies lapse, or just outright canceled them, why pay for health care for someone elses kids as well as your own? Even if half the bill was not picked up by the working people of Hawaii, the same result should be expected. Being that those with good paying jobs were picking up half the tab, I am shocked it took seven months.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203946904574298661486528186.html
Excerpts:
“Erisa allows employers that self-insure—that is, those large enough to build their own risk pools and pay benefits directly”
“Roughly 75% of employer-based coverage is governed by Erisa’s “freedom of purchase” rules.”
“Goodbye to all that. The House bill says that after a five-year grace period all Erisa insurance offerings will have to win government approval”
“Currently, lawsuits about employee benefits are barred under the law, allowing large employers to avoid the state tort lotteries in disputes over coverage.”
“As a gratuity to the trial bar, Democrats will now subject businesses to these liabilities in the name of health “reform.”"
DJ,
You said, “Regarding Social Security, neither side differs on the approach to SS. There have been attempts to privatize, but they fall on deaf ears. An ideologically different party would have ran candidates on the advantages of privatizing SS. Instead, we are told it is “the third rail” NO ONE messes with social security.”
I don’t think that you appreciate the political realities that both parties have to deal with. Independent of Democrats and Republicans you have special interest groups such as the gun lobby, minority groups, unions,lawyers,etc. The weakest of these by far are the taxpayers. THE most powerful group are the old people.
They are sometimes easily mislead. When George Bush tried to allow younger people to redirect a small fraction of their SS contributions in to private accounts in exchange for slowing the entitlement liability growth of SS, the Democrats ginned up Grandma and Grandpa in to believing that those EVIL Republicans were risking THEIR SS money in the stock market.
It worked wonderfully. Republicans were severely damaged and SS reform was killed. In fact Democrats have so owned the geezers that they were totally taken off guard when the old folks turned on them over Obamacare. I have laughed to myself thinking how Democrats are accusing Republicans of scaring old folks with tales of death panels, but they had no trouble lying to seniors about private accounts back in 01 or 02.
Again I don’t think you properly account for these special interest groups who vie with one another to control either party. I don’t know that there is a special interest group with the power to push any party towards messing with social security. The seniors will murder which ever party tries.
Alan,
I do appreciate the political realities you mentioned. I am merely advocating for a different tone from Washington. It is probable that the lobbyist’s will maintain control over the political spectrum, it doesn’t mean I have to like it.
I agreed with Bush’s stance on health care, I still think it is a much better idea, and you are correct , the DNC threw Grandma and Grandpa a half truth, and Grandma and Grandpa bought it. My point is, I did not see a lot of GOP bubbas’ refuting the contention the DNC threw out. It seems as if the GOP just rolled over and said, “Well, Dubya tried, but Grandma nad Grandpa said NO! so we will just let it go.” It was probably lobby pressure that caused it, I do not doubt that, I just want a message from the GOP that differs from that of the DNC.
DJ,
“I just want a message from the GOP that differs from that of the DNC.”
Then you had better join one of the special interest groups that is trying to shape the Republican Party.
It is easy to forget that the Reaganites tried and failed for a long time against the moderates before they seized control of the GOP and lead it to victory in 1980.
Third party campaigns are always disasters. The 2 parties are reality. If you choose not to accept that, you are choosing to be powerless.
The parties are not static. The tea partyers are influencing Republicans, which is a great public relations contrast to the nuts and acorns who tell the Democrats what to do.
Alan,
I am well a ware of the “two” parties we have. I was forefront in trying to get RP supporters to vote McCain-simply because we are dominated by a two party system.
I am a member of several websites that are trying to rebuild the GOP.
The Reagan revolution is precisely what I am talking about. conservative/Libertarian message won 49 states and gained control of Congress for the first time in 2 billion years. Then the power of the purse usurped the GOP, they became addicted to social justice (albeit on a smaller level than the DNC) and then the slippery slope to where we are now. To parties with the same message, the only difference is the speed in which they want to implement their plan. It sadly reminds me of the run to Socialism in Europe, you had to sides, the Leninists who wanted to get there now! and the Fabians who wanted to go slowly.
Since Sen. Kennedy passed away and we are hearing so many wonderful things about the “Lion of the Senate”, I thought I would post a site about his real life.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1209313/Ted-Kennedy-The-Senator-Sleaze-drunk-sexual-bully–left-young-woman-die.html
Also since we are hearing about how he reached across the isle to work with Republicans it is also instructive how he really treated Republicans. In this case Robert Bork.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-ted-kennedy-said-about-robert-bork.html
DJ,
I agree with you on what the Republicans had become up until 06. I said it before, they became amateur Democrats, actually amateur Socialists, same thing. Instead of the Two party system, we had the ” me too ” form of government. The GOP countered Democratic entitlement proposals with their own ” me too ” give aways.
As soon as the economy and the Iraq war hit rough patches the press ginned up the ” culture of corruption “, totally ignoring Democrat scandals and Republicans lost power.
The voters sure showed the Republicans. Now they have professional bolsheviks as their dictators. The voters are slowly figuring out that they royally screwed themselves making their point to Republicans.
I believe that at least for the short term, being turned out of power in 06 and 08 taught the GOP a lesson. They have to brand themselves as an alternative to Democratic populism.
Forcing neo liberals like Arlen Spector out of the Republican Party is a great place to start.
Alan,
Arlen is gone, now we need both of Maine’s Senators to go as well.
As a Pennsylvanian, is there any chance that Rick Santorum has anything left in the tank? Maybe Governor…
The first few weeks after Chairman MaObama won, everywhere I went there wer Pro Obama/Biden bumper stickers, and the Leninesque “Yes We Did” stickers, I don’t see many anymore, I am really getting the feeling that there is some serious buyers remorse. I am not convinced that the remorse is significant enough to get him ousted in 12 though.
As far as being an alternative to the DNC, the GOP has a long way to go, when I hear them saying we agree health are needs reform, and I cannot find any plan or legislation that doesn’t involve government involvement I am still not convinced they have learned there lesson.
“Arlen is gone, now we need both of Maine’s Senators to go as well.”
Amen to that…the smaller the GOP gets, the better the country will be IMO. Purging yourselves of so-called undesirables will be the the death of the GOP.
“As a Pennsylvanian, is there any chance that Rick Santorum has anything left in the tank?”
Nope, but thanks for asking…he’s a has-been far-Right wacko…stick a fork in him.
“I am really getting the feeling that there is some serious buyers remorse.”
Keep dreaming wing-nut…
I met some people recently who vehemently told me that a stimulus won’t work. The “only” way, they said, to stimulate an economy is to cut taxes. As they talked I couldn’t help but thinking about the Bush tax cuts that preceded our current recession. Somehow they were not able to put that particular 2 and 2 together.
(Post hoc ergo propter hoc) != (2 + 2)
Yeah, yeah. :)
It’s all in the timing and those nebulous other factors. If something good happens and my president is in charge, he’s obviously responsible. If something bad happens and my president is in charge, it’s obviously the fault of the last other-party president that was around. This works amazingly well for explaining away any possible set of circumstances.
If, however, it seems that there isn’t an other-party president around where we can lay the blame, then it’s always those “other factors.”
This makes a neat and tidy circular system so that “my” president is always good and “your” president is always bad.
Bush implemented tax cuts when the economy went bad. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, therefore, the economy was someone else’s fault. Then, if the economy recovers, now or even in a few years, it will obviously be the results of Bush’s wisdom, tax cuts and prescience.
LOLZ!
Obama is not just your President. Further, Obama would not be our President except for a vote from all parties. This country belongs to all of us. It’s in our best interests that ALL our Presidents do well.
So, point out your supportive positions on President Bush, the first President Bush, and Reagan, or remain looking like a hypocrite: “If something good happens and my president is in charge, he’s obviously responsible. If something bad happens and my president is in charge, it’s obviously the fault of the last other-party president that was around. This works amazingly well for explaining away any possible set of circumstances.
If, however, it seems that there isn’t an other-party president around where we can lay the blame, then it’s always those other factors.”
Wigglesworth,
You are back. I thought that with President Obama’s poll numbers dipping ever so slightly, that you had moved on to friendlier forums.
As far as the Bush tax cuts working or not working, that is an interesting FACTOR in the whole economic equation. In other words, if all other FACTORS were constant, we could accurately judge the Bush tax cuts. I will assume that you are with me so far.
The problem with this is that all other FACTORS were not constant. The most obvious other variable would be the ascension of Pelosi and the Democrats in the House of Representatives.
The other variables such as high energy prices and the corruption of the financial system through Fannie and Freddie can also be laid at the feet of your Democrats.
I do not expect you to agree with my content, but I at least made my point with clarity.
Oh I never left. :)
Is that last sentence a slam on me? That I post with unclarity or something?
All I’m saying, without relying on one ounce of economic knowledge or observation is that:
1. Bush cut taxes
2. There followed an economic recession
3. Obama was elected and did a stimulus
4. The economy is showing some signs of recovery
Obviously this chain of events is more simplistic than a tinker toy. I know that. Bush did a lot more than just cut taxes, the sum total of which may have had a huge impact on the economy.
But if a recovery has started and gets healthier and healthier under Obama, I’m sure some people will look at these facts and say:
Obama sucks. Bush rocks.
Is that clear enough for ya?
Wigglesworth,
“Is that last sentence a slam on me? That I post with unclarity or something?”
In fairness, I read your post a little too fast the first time. After rereading it, I admit to being a little harsh. However, I do have a problem with your phrase “Post hoc ergo propter hoc,”. As a poor dum hick, that went right over my head.
“But if a recovery has started and gets healthier and healthier under Obama,I’m sure some people will look at these facts and say:
Obama sucks. Bush rocks.”
The economy is in recovery. The question is how far and how fast will it continue. If the recovery in jobs lags behind the rest of the economy for too long, it won’t just be “some people”.
I know this changes the subject, but energy is my particular interest. How will we ever get to the “green economy” when these damn oil companies keep finding more oil?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/business/global/03oil.html?_r=1&hpw
“BP Discovers ‘Giant’ Oil Field in Gulf”
I really wish “your guy” Obama would stop demonizing the doctors, hospitals,insurance companies, and big pharma, and go back to what Democrats do best, bashing big oil. Those windfall profits that found this deep sea deposit would be much better spent subsidizing a bunch of windmill and solar farms. Makes me all warm and fuzzy just thinking about it.
1. Bush cut taxes
2. There followed an economic recession
3. Obama was elected and did a stimulus
4. The economy is showing some signs of recovery
It bares repeating, “…without relying on one ounce of economic knowledge or observation…”
“signs of recovery” Where did you say your head is? Oh, you didn’t…why point out the obvious.
Encouraging more capital would be bad for the less fortunate because…you’ve been duped into that view. I can assume that if I promise to give your evil capital to the less fortunate I’ll be allowed control and directive of said capital while restricting you of competition. If you have no capital I assume it would be evil for me to hire you so you can save up for some, seeing as how your ideology would eliminate capital and that those with it hate those who don’t have it.
Yep, convoluted but those are your dots I’ve connected.
This is a quickie flyby, more later:
NYD introduced that phrase, not me, when NYD brilliantly and succinctly said:
(Post hoc ergo propter hoc) != (2 + 2)
An argument that is quite elegant in its simplicity. :)
Wigglesworth,
The Bush tax cut increased federal revenue (just like ALL tax cuts do). Bush supported the stimulus just like Chairman MaObama does, problem is, this “recovery” you speak of has happened with very little of the stimulus money being spent. In other words, the “recovery” is happening without the benefit of the stimulus-it was NEVER NEEDED. The money allocated for the stimulus was a waste of time. Even in this over-regulated capitalism-lite economic system we currently have, it has managed to recover its self.
“The Bush tax cut increased federal revenue”
…but federal revenue did NOT increase as much as it would have without the Bush tax cuts (for mostly the very wealthy), period.
“In other words, the ‘recovery’ is happening without the benefit of the stimulus”
…in your own completely & totally biased opinion that is.
“The money allocated for the stimulus was a waste of time.”
Again, in your own completely & totally biased opinion that is.
“…but federal revenue did NOT increase as much as it would have without the Bush tax cuts (for mostly the very wealthy), period.”
In your completely and totally biased AND unsupported opinion that is.
“In other words, the ‘recovery’ is happening without the benefit of the stimulus” Dear Leader announced the recovery, not me. Try researching things a bit Comrade…
“The money allocated for the stimulus was a waste of time.” Obviously, if the economy is in recovery, the “stimulus money was not needed-oddly just as predicted by FREE MARKET proponents PERIOD.
Try researching some facts Comrade.
So, some seem to think that crippling those who are not poor is helping the poor. If all are made poor it will help the poor. Supporting a system that makes businesses accountable to gov’t rather then consumers will help the poor.
Because there seems to be no common sense, we still have history. The above crippling has been tried before. It has never worked…Oh, but we’ll have different results this time! Does anyone remember the meaning of insanity?
I find it amusing to watch the Obama disciples deal with his slippage in the poles and also with the health care debacle. Their line is that America voted for the hope and change agenda. Well it seems that America has CHANGED it’s mind.
Rather like a drunken bride waking up the next morning and saying, “What the hell was I thinking!!”. None of Prince Charming’s promises were kept.
After promising to go over line by line to get rid of earmarks, we got the stimulus bill, which was nothing but payoffs to Democratic lackeys. After promising to be post racial, he has hired people like his green job czar.
After promising to get rid of lobbyists, he immediately hired some. After promises to fix health care we got a thousand page monstrosity for a house bill that most of it’s supporters have not read, could not read, and could not tell you what is or is not in the bill.
The honeymoon is over. It will be a rocky 4 year marriage at best, followed by a quickie divorce.
The luxury liner SS Obama just hit another rock during it’s historic 4 year cruise. There goes that green collar job I had my heart set on.
President Obama’s Green jobs Czar resigned.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/us/politics/06vanjones.html?_r=1&hp
Staying with the green economy theme, does anyone remember how Democrats said that the US must be a leader in this new reality? They were so very concerned that we were being left behind. Well Spain thought that way. They decided to be the leader in installed Solar capacity. Let’s see how that worked out for them.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125193815050081615.html
Those of us on the right have been amazed that the public has not woken up to the rampant corruption of many of President Obama’s support groups. The state controlled media has protected these groups.
Now 2 rays of sunlight in the form of videos has been cast upon ACORN. Finally the stench of mendacity has become too strong even for this administration. The Census bureau is cutting ties to ACORN.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125271412822705239.html
The ACORN debacle is only beginning. It does not matter how bad things get though, Chairman MaObama will not sever ties with his Mob cronies.
I doubt Van Jones is done either, soon we will hear about him as an advisors advisor, or an ACORN board member, Chiarman MaObama is not going to let a fellow Communist get to far away.
More evidence that the green economy will just have to wait. Contrary to what some on this board believe, those wonderfully evil oil companies just keep on keeping on finding and expanding oil and natural gas production around the world.
We have not run out of fossil fuel just yet. This to me seems a much better use of $42 billion than for the next subsidized alternative energy project.
It’s the difference between how the private sector makes economically intelligent decisions because they have to make a profit and the way government makes politically motivated decisions.
And unlike your typical green power BS technology, oil and gas actually PAY more in taxes to the various governments than they cost. What a concept MG.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/approval-for-gorgon-gas-project-expected-in-days-2009-09-11
“OK for $42 billion Gorgon project expected in days
Project to lead Australia in liquid natural-gas production”
“The Gorgon project to tap into 40 trillion cubic feet of gas would more than double the size of the country’s largest LNG terminal,”
Thanks for the link Alan, I had read about the Gorgon find awhile back and had forgotten about it.
Well, you can go back to forgetting about it, since they don’t even have any hard numbers on the amount of oil that they can expect to get out of there eventually, someday, when the price is right that is…
“Actually Comrade, his plan IS a single payer plan.”
It’s been obvious for many months now that you simply don’t know what a single payer health care plan looks like “DJ”. That’s YOUR problem, not mine!
“THe verbiage in the house bill prohibits one from getting private insurance when they change jobs”
Nonsense, almost every single health care plan that will be available in the national health insurance “exchange” will be a PRIVATE plan, period.
“Chairman MaObama did proise to eliminate pork”
No, he didn’t, and even John McCain’s buddy Lindsey Graham has said that the goal is NOT to eliminate ALL earmarks. The point is to shed more light on them, which the Democratic Congress has done…all while reducing both their numbers (which ballooned under GOP “leadership” of Congress) & their actual cost.
From your own link:
“Now, let me be clear: Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that’s why I’ve opposed their outright elimination. And I also find it ironic that some of those who rail most loudly against this bill because of earmarks actually inserted earmarks of their own — and will tout them in their own states and their own districts.”
and…
“In 2007, the new Democratic leadership in Congress began to address these abuses with a series of reforms that I was proud to have helped to write. We eliminated anonymous earmarks and created new measures of transparency in the process, so Americans can better follow how their tax dollars are being spent.”
————————
“and that does not change the FACT that he campaigned on ELIMINATING THEM.”
Once again “DJ”, you have ZERO FACTS to back up what you have to say here, just like always…lol…
“‘…but federal revenue did NOT increase as much as it would have without the Bush tax cuts (for mostly the very wealthy), period.’
In your completely and totally biased AND unsupported opinion that is.”
LOL…oh-thee-that-makes-statements-all-the-time-without-ANY-support, chew on this:
“No, The Bush Tax Cuts Have NOT Generated Higher Revenues”
“the strong, broad consensus among economists — including conservative economists and Bush’s own current and former top economists — is to the contrary: The Bush tax cuts have had a net negative impact on revenues (i.e., revenues would have been higher, and would be higher today, if the Bush tax cuts had not taken place).”
http://logicizer.blogtownhall.com/default.aspx?mode=post&g=f48d2bf3-1c51-4592-aa46-191f089d752f
That’s from a “conservative” website BTW.
“A study by the President’s own Treasury Department confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum: cutting taxes decreases revenues.”
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692
Also, through the end of 2008, total federal tax revenues relative to GDP had yet to regain their 2000 peak.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png
————————-
“Dear Leader announced the recovery, not me.”
Hey, the recovery has only just started to begin…it’s not even in full swing yet!
“Obviously, if the economy is in recovery, the stimulus money was not needed-oddly just as predicted by FREE MARKET proponents PERIOD.”
And the Right-wing noise machine continues…ugh… Whether we like it or not, a large portion of our economy is driven by consumption. How, praytell, does one try to encourage others to spend money during an economic downturn? You do this the same way that it’s been done successfully in the past…you show *leadership* by having the govt. spend more money so that consumer confidence rises over time, period.
As per usual “DJ”, you simply don’t know what the heck you are trying to talk about, period end of story.
“You do this the same way that it’s been done successfully in the past…you show *leadership* by having the govt. spend more money so that consumer confidence rises over time, period.”
Why then is Dear Leader not spending? If the purpose of “Governemnt Spending” is to increase COnsumer Confidence, logic would dictate that the more the Government spends the better. Yet Dear Leader is sitting on BILLIONS!
The formula you adore has never worked; didn’t work for FDR, didn’t work for Japan, and will not work for Chairman MaObama.
The illogic you just displayed Kiddo is a new low. Keep trying though…
“Why then is Dear Leader not spending?”
He is, and you’re one of the ones on here that’s been whining about it! LOL…
“Yet Dear Leader is sitting on BILLIONS!”
Really now?? And where would those “BILLIONS” be, praytell??
“The formula you adore has never worked; didn’t work for FDR”
Of course it did, and your completely biased, Right-wing assertions to the contrary are unimportant on the matter, period.
Mister Guy,
You said, “Well, you can go back to forgetting about it, since they don’t even have any hard numbers on the amount of oil that they can expect to get out of there eventually, someday, when the price is right that is…”
You posted this as a response to DJ’s answer to me about the Gorgon project which has to do with natural gas not oil. I am going to assume that you were thinking one thing and typed another. It happens to me all of the time.
“…since they don’t even have any hard numbers on the amount of oil that they can expect to get out…”
You really should learn to read Comrade Guy, the article is refering to LIQUID NATURAL GAS, not oil.
Life is a learning experience! Everything eventually will turn to it’s opposite. “Ignorance” will eventually become “enlightenment.” You cannot stop progress. “Competition” must eventually become “cooperation.” …It’s “DIALECTICAL!” …”Dogma” and “Superstition” will be replaced by the “Scientific Method!”.. “Subjective believing” will be replaced by “Objective knowing!” …The future is a freight train and those that stand in it’s way will be run over and crushed and buried inside the trash can of the no longer relevant past.
Capitalism will turn to Socialism and Socialism will turn to Communism and the ignorant will never know what hit them and buried them.
You cannot stop the forward movement of history!
Wars will end when “Nation States” are transformed into a cooperative “global village” that is ruled from the bottom up, rather then from the top down!
“Wars will end when “Nation States” are transformed into a cooperative “global village” that is ruled from the bottom up, rather then from the top down!”
Wars will not end with the loss of the nation state, the unitended consequence of this Utopian fallacy will be more upheavel and unrest-or do you advocate a police state?
Nothing can be ruled form the bottom up-where do you come up with this drivel???